This can't possibly be good news but it's better than hearing how good our policies are. I am truly amazed how some folks think they can "win" against insurgents.

I wish I could apportion where my tax money goes.

I saw that report and it certainly isn't encouraging. That said, why do you say it is better to hear how we are failing than to hear that we are succeeding? I guess you mean that you've pretty much determined that we cannot "win" and, therefore, any "positive reports" are pure B.S. If so, it's fair to think as much even if other reasonable people disagree.

Why do you think it is impossible, as opposed to unlikely, that we can defeat the insurgency? The notion that insurgencies cannot be defeated is a total myth. Ever since Vietnam, many people have been under the mistaken impression that it is impossible to defeat an insurgency. History, however, is replete with examples of occupying powers working in conjunction with locals to defeat insurgencies. The Brits did it in Malaya, the Germans did in all over Europe, we did it all over Central America during the 20th century, and the list goes on.

I'm not saying we will defeat the insurgency, I am just saying it is far from certain that we will not. The same people who think the insurgency cannot be defeated are the same who are saying the surge would not work and it would simply result in more death. Well, violence levels are down and AQI is all but gone. We have a LONG, LONG way to go, but I think it's a little unreasonable to say we cannot "win."

I saw that report and it certainly isn't encouraging. That said, why do you say it is better to hear how we are failing than to hear that we are succeeding? I guess you mean that you've pretty much determined that we cannot "win" and, therefore, any "positive reports" are pure B.S. If so, it's fair to think as much even if other reasonable people disagree.

Why do you think it is impossible, as opposed to unlikely, that we can defeat the insurgency? The notion that insurgencies cannot be defeated is a total myth. Ever since Vietnam, many people have been under the mistaken impression that it is impossible to defeat an insurgency. History, however, is replete with examples of occupying powers working in conjunction with locals to defeat insurgencies. The Brits did it in Malaya, the Germans did in all over Europe, we did it all over Central America during the 20th century, and the list goes on.

I'm not saying we will defeat the insurgency, I am just saying it is far from certain that we will not. The same people who think the insurgency cannot be defeated are the same who are saying the surge would not work and it would simply result in more death. Well, violence levels are down and AQI is all but gone. We have a LONG, LONG way to go, but I think it's a little unreasonable to say we cannot "win."

My only comment to your analysis is that, there are a number of ways to defeat insurgents. While Germany was able to suppress insurgency, their methods during the two world wars (particularly WWII) are not acceptable to a modern democracy.

With this said, I generally agree with you. Actually, you can go back to the Napoleonic Wars and the French occupation of Spain. What is interesting in that campaign is that it contained examples of both effective and ineffective counter-insurgency in the same country. The northwest of Spain was essentially docile and safe b/c the Marshal in that region used the "carrot and stick" method with reluctant but fierce use of the "stick". In the Catalan and other southern regions, there was no "carrot" offerred just liberal and brutal applications of the stick. As a result, no French soldier was safe except in company or larger sized units.

Rebuilding an infrastructure that was barely there to start, overcoming generational hatreds, and teaching a citizenry the responsibilities that come with true democracy cannot be achieved overnight and require a long term commitment from the supporting power.

Not saying we should have been in there in the first place, but just not sure how to now get out w/out endangering what has actually been accomplished.

__________________You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.

"The study notes that U.S. military interventions can be risky as well as costly because of the tenacity of jihadists, 'infected by religious extremism.' It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail."

The real story here is that The Rand Corporation is still chowing down at the public trough and passing off banal truisms as deeply insightful analysis. Who knew that jihadists were both tenacious and "infected by religious extremism"? Next they will reveal that many of these jihadists are also Muslims.

Fighting insurgencies is difficult, it's not impossible. We are on the road to victory in Iraq and no cold water from the dim bulbs that sit around on their brains at The Rand Corporation can alter that fact.

I saw that report and it certainly isn't encouraging. That said, why do you say it is better to hear how we are failing than to hear that we are succeeding? I guess you mean that you've pretty much determined that we cannot "win" and, therefore, any "positive reports" are pure B.S. If so, it's fair to think as much even if other reasonable people disagree.

Why do you think it is impossible, as opposed to unlikely, that we can defeat the insurgency? The notion that insurgencies cannot be defeated is a total myth. Ever since Vietnam, many people have been under the mistaken impression that it is impossible to defeat an insurgency. History, however, is replete with examples of occupying powers working in conjunction with locals to defeat insurgencies. The Brits did it in Malaya, the Germans did in all over Europe, we did it all over Central America during the 20th century, and the list goes on.

I'm not saying we will defeat the insurgency, I am just saying it is far from certain that we will not. The same people who think the insurgency cannot be defeated are the same who are saying the surge would not work and it would simply result in more death. Well, violence levels are down and AQI is all but gone. We have a LONG, LONG way to go, but I think it's a little unreasonable to say we cannot "win."

The truth hurts and the truth is light. This isn't a black and white issue. If your breath is kicking I'm going to tell you and I would expect you to do the same. What I am saying is you learn from failures but if you don't recognize it you are only delaying the inevitable and you'll probably be in a worse off position. The real question you should ask yourself is if China invaded the United States could/can they win?

History has shown time and time again that a nation can not defeat radical insurgents long term. The examples you gave are very poor examples. I can't believe you used Germany of all places as an example (tell me all about their successes). As for us in South America, I can't count the many disasters and failures we have had over there. We are so loved over there aren't we? Malaya? Are you talking about during Colonial times or the internal conflict that occurred in the late 60's?

My guess is that we will see attacks increase as the election draws closer. Insurgents love democrats and if Obama win his party we could see the attackes grow even more. With the insugents hoping the American people will vote for Obama and our withdraw. Thats just my opinion.

do you have any facts, or links, that prove this? to me, this is like saying you don't support the troops, if you are against the war. this statement reads like it came straight out of the mouth of anyone in the current administration

__________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan

do you have any facts, or links, that prove this? to me, this is like saying you don't support the troops, if you are against the war. this statement reads like it came straight out of the mouth of anyone in the current administration

History has shown time and time again that a nation can not defeat radical insurgents long term. The examples you gave are very poor examples. I can't believe you used Germany of all places as an example (tell me all about their successes). As for us in South America, I can't count the many disasters and failures we have had over there. We are so loved over there aren't we? Malaya? Are you talking about during Colonial times or the internal conflict that occurred in the late 60's?

Obviously I did not intend to say we should emulate the Nazis in our occupation of Iraq. I cited them for the proposition that insurgencies can be defeated. The Germans kept a lid on insurgencies in their occupied territories; they were beaten by external forces. As for Malaya, I'm talking about the post-WW II defeat of the insurgency. Finally, with regard to Central America, we managed to clamp down pretty effectively on leftist insurgencies, even if there was blowback.

Also, I think Iraq pretty much proves you can defeat radical insurgents. While Iraqi nationalist insurgents are quite strong, they've helped us defeat the super-radicals (i.e., AQI). Moreover, we've seen more and more Iraqi groups turn to work in concert with U.S. forces. By no means do I mean to say things are peachy, but to say it is impossible to defeat an insurgency is wrong.

do you have any facts, or links, that prove this? to me, this is like saying you don't support the troops, if you are against the war. this statement reads like it came straight out of the mouth of anyone in the current administration

I think it will be an "interesting" (for lack of a better word) time immediately following the inauguration should someone such as Obama take office. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing so much as he's been pretty vocal in stating that we should have never gone to war, we shouldn't be there. And that's all fine, but we are there now. So, if he's elected, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a sentiment on the insurgents' side of "let's see how strongly he'll stick to his 'we shouldn't be there anyway' platform now."

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

I think it will be an "interesting" (for lack of a better word) time immediately following the inauguration should someone such as Obama take office. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing so much as he's been pretty vocal in stating that we should have never gone to war, we shouldn't be there. And that's all fine, but we are there now. So, if he's elected, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a sentiment on the insurgents' side of "let's see how strongly he'll stick to his 'we shouldn't be there anyway' platform now."

I really like Obama, but I question his decision to essentially nullify any leverage we have in talks with moderate insurgent groups by declaring that all conventional combat troops will be out of Iraq within 16 months. IMO, to make that kind of unconditional commitment regardless of what "conditions on the ground" are like is irresponsible and purely "political."